Steve King wrote:
>>Sorry, but that's not acceptable. Any patch that I'd consider for
>>inclusion must have the following characteristics:
>>
>> * It must be possible to create separate DLLs for each libsvn_*
>> library. If the patch also lets you build one huge DLL, that's
>> fine, but multiple DLLs is a prerequisite.
>>
>>
>
>Just ignore the *dsp the patch includes and change the
>library project to output a dll instead of a static lib and you're done.
>
Fine, so do it. :-)
>It's even easier to produce several dll's instead of a big one, but
>since I wanted that I included such a dsp file.
>
Well, we're moving towards a DSP generator. Maybe you could base your
patch on that -- teach the generator to make DLLs in addition to static
libs?
>
>
>
>> * It must introduce a DLL naming convention for:
>> o Debug vs. Release builds
>> o VC6 vs. VC7 builds
>>
>>
>I'm not sure what you mean about this. If you mean different
>names for each of those dll's
>
That's what I mean. For example, a Release DLL built by VC7 should have
a different name than a Release DLL built by VC6.
> then that can be done in the
>project files easily. Since I don't have VC6 I didn't touch those
>but someone with VC6 won't have any problems to do that.
>What I did was the 'big' work of changing all header and
>source files.
>
Unfortunately, that's not quite right because linkage between the DLLs
themselves won't be correct.
>> * It must not mandate the use of non-generated lists of exported
>> functions.
>>
>>
>It doesn't.
>
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Mar 23 22:24:35 2003